Author
Topic: Blog Threads (Read 55820 times)

So are topics on the blog posts ok or no? Or is it just going to be the blog comments that are a taboo subject? I know one of the blog posts from today is on a topic already covered here, hopefully the new-rule-if-there-will-be-a-rule doesn't apply retroactively!

Logged

“Poetry is a sword of lightning, ever unsheathed, which consumes the scabbard that would contain it.” PBS

It took me a couple of days to figure out how to put this into words that made sense outside my head but here it goes. To me, it comes down to the type and timing of discussions you want with a blog v forum. To continue on with the the "my house, my rules" analogy that people have been using:

The blog is like an open house party that anyone can attend, but all conversation topics must be approved by the host, and then each response must by veted and approved by the host as well. Once the party is finished, all the responses are boxed up and put in the attic, so unless you go looking for a topic, there's no more interaction once the party is over.

The forum, on the other hand, is an invitation only party where you can comment as much as you like, and provided you aren't wearing the lampshade on your head, you're welcome to stay and have fun. There's no delay in conversation and if something doesn't interest you, there are more conversations to check out.

The problem I see, is that if a latecomer to the open house really wants a conversation, there's nowhere for them to go except the invitation only party and hope that there are others who want to talk about the same thing.

Or failing that, they could have an after party at the local coffee shop with a small group to continue the topic without seeking the hosts approval. But we all know how the forum feels about those sneeky little coffee drinkers...

So are topics on the blog posts ok or no? Or is it just going to be the blog comments that are a taboo subject? I know one of the blog posts from today is on a topic already covered here, hopefully the new-rule-if-there-will-be-a-rule doesn't apply retroactively!

I had to look at the blog to figure out which one till I realized you were talking about the airline goody bag one. The picture is from something called failbook.org or something like that. Admin could have gotten it from the website not realizing it was discussed here already.

I have noticed some changes on the site design etc but no change to the rules. Unless I missed it?

As far as I can tell (and forgive me if I misunderstood), no clear-cut decision or clarification has been made. It would be really helpful if one of the mods or the Dame herself could clarify. Is the rule no threads about blog posts at all or no discussion of blog comments?

"The policy of this forum that "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" is meant to preserve that sense of community many of you appreciate. The blog has its own community with regulars who weigh in every day and there is some cross over between the two communities. (snipped) If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions. Fair? "

Seems to me Ms Jeanne is asking us if we _also_ want the Blog commenters to have access to discussing what we here in this forum talk about. Sort of a "turnabout is fair play" move. Obviously for them to have something to comment on Ms Jeanne would have to post our posts/threads.

If everyone/a large majority says "sure, go ahead and post our forum threads* on the blog, it's no different than what is accessible from just clicking w/o registering anyway" I would think anonymity would be maintained from the non-accessible unless registered parts of EHell.

*Probably only threads that garner more than a page (whatever you have it set to show) of responses types of threads would ever make it to the blog. So carts returned/knitting in public/kids on airplanes.. but probably not "snakes in a restaurant" type of posts. Hot Topics, in other words, might bring some traffic to her blog and promote discussions.

To make the forum more inviting maybe each Hot Topic would be linked back to the forum? garnering more attention and maybe even more members?

Then again.. maybe she, EHell Dame, didn't like her comments being discussed? I don't know. Just that re-reading her first post had me rethinking what I posted before and ^^^ the above* is what she might have been aiming for.

Logged

"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin

Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame? As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be. I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I enjoy the blog but don't read it regularly and have never (that I recall) commented on a topic. Prior to this thread, I would have assumed a forum thread on a blog topic would be okay but a forum thread on specific blog comments would not be okay. To me, it would be like starting a new post to discuss a comment you didn't like in another thread. I can't see that going over well with anyone.

That said, I can appreciate that when we're talking about the Admin's comment, which has been published as part of the blog, the water is murky. Is it considered part of the topic or part of the comments? I can see where those who enjoy discussing the blog would need that clarified.

As for the forum, obviously I do post here a lot. I would not want my comments shared as blog topics ("Forum Poster Jen recently said X with regard to topic Y, and her comment kicked of a lively debate because..." etc.)

As for forum topics, if the topic was made general enough that the original poster could not be identified, I wouldn't have an issue with it being turned into a blog post. I would hope the OP would be contacted first, either to ask permission or to give a heads-up. Again, I would be fine with this IF the post could be scrubbed well enough so as not to be identifiable by the OP's friends and family.

*Edited to clarify - I'm talking about general life/work/social topics that end up being great discussions, not very personal inter-relationship issues posters seek advice on, like with their DH's, in-laws, kids' teachers, etc. I don't think those can be generalized enough to be completely anonymous so I personally wouldn't want mine shared, just in case it get read by someone I know.

That makes a lot of sense JenJay. I must admit I look at the blog more now to see what's happening over there. Before this thread, I almost didn't know it existed. Now I read it and participate and noticed there are alot of posters out there on the blog. Yesterday's was particularly vigorous. Not to pile on, but can we get a clarification? I really like JenJay's suggestion.

Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame? As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be. I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her. I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us. Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.

Logged

"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin

Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame? As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be. I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her. I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us. Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.

No need for the snark. I just think it's a bad idea to try and speak for someone who is clearly able to speak for themselves. Obviously you feel differently.

Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame? As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be. I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her. I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us. Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.

Squeakers, your post would have been fine except that last paragraph. If you have nothing nice to add, then don't post it. Snark is neither requested nor is it required to get your point across.

Logged

By their victory, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions and other units of the Fifth Amphibious Corps have made an accounting to their country which only history will be able to value fully. Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue."

Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame? As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be. I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her. I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us. Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.

Squeakers, your post would have been fine except that last paragraph. If you have nothing nice to add, then don't post it. Snark is neither requested nor is it required to get your point across.

Sorry, sir.

Logged

"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin

I still maintain that the nature of the blog differs so much from the nature of the forum that the comparison isn't valid. People submit to the blog expecting the story to be posted to the public. People post on the forum expecting it to be read only by a (relatively) closed group of people.

Either way, I'd like clear rules from a moderator instead of vague threats.